The last line of this article refers to a poem by Dylan Thomas, pleading for his father to fight against death, but the author of this article is obviously on the opposite side of this debate. Are some parts of his argumentation questionable? How would you like to face death, and what can be done about a system that consistently encourages overtreatment?
Considering death is such a delicate matter, it is hard to tell what’s best when we get caught up in an unfortunate scenario. Yet, in my opinion, the choice whether one should be put on life support or be left to face his own fate is still entirely to be made by the individual himself. It is, therefore, imperative that the patient’s wishes are clearly expressed in his will, in order to avoid imposing the burden of making this tough decision upon others. In the cases, where no such will is present, I believe it is only then that the doctor should decide how to treat the patient and not without having firstly consulted and mutually agreed on the treatment with the patient’s family.
ReplyDeleteThis article seemed rather far too biased from the doctor’s standpoint for my liking. I felt it almost implied that people are ignorant poor bastards, who are trying to save their bacon from situations where it is more than evident that their fate is sealed – when, in fact, they are simply looking for a chance, a chance to spend that some extra time with their family, a chance to postpone the grief they are about to inflict upon them. The article claims it selfish of one to wish to be treated in dire situations. Supposedly, the treatment is deemed futile by the doctors and personnel and is, essentially, in vain; it would be better to simply let go. The author back these beliefs, which he also shares, up with a fake statistic, claiming that untreated people often live for longer periods of time. He also tries to enforce his view with the story of his cousin. I cannot seem to grasp how Torch’s staying at home is tied to his living longer. It is rather incorrect to deduct that he’s lived longer because he wasn’t treated. He might as well have lived for 12 month, if he was subjected to chemotherapy. He might as well have died a week after his diagnosis. It’s all based on chance. Furthermore, the doctors are inclined to predict a near definite base minimum when facing the question “How long will I live?”, in order to avoid causing disappointment if the patient dies earlier.
In conclusion, everyone should decide for himself how to tackle these situations. It is a right they have. After all, it’s their own life that’s at stake.
First things first, I have to say that I agree with the authors opinion that everyone should at least have the choice of how they leave this life. Whether the person would choose a shorter, more enjoyable life after the terminal diagnosis or a longer one with artificial support and probable suffering should be absolutely up to the person whom it directly concerns. Obviously, family does have a huge impact, but so do other factors. At the end of the day, the choice should be done by the diagnosed person and not by the doctors or family.
ReplyDeleteIf a medical expert is diagnosed with a terminal illness or injury, he or she should be able to have a choice as well. They just might have a heads-up about the risks and consequences, but on the other hand they might be blinded with their professional experience.
As I mentioned earlier, I do agree that a person should have a choice, but which choice is the correct one? I doubt that even diagnosed doctors might not have a correct one-sided answer to that question. The thing is that if the diagnosed person is treated, even with little chances of success, the person might just get better and live longer and in rare cases even be cured. This could be translated into extra time with their children, family and friends; perhaps it would be more painful, maybe not. The quick and painless manner isn’t always the way to go. There are many different factors and each case of diagnosis is individual.
There must be something true about this article, and I agree with the writer completely and if I was to be conditioned with a terminal illness such as cancer, I would probably choose to go out the same way – without too much fuss and operations of any sort. There is also some truth about what the writer wrote about over-conditioning. Doctors even here in Slovakia are going to give you 3 different medications even if you only have a simple flu which can probably be treated faster by just staying in bed with a cup of tea. This alone is proof that there is something wrong with the system. Either the doctors are there to prescribe you pills that each have side effects that then get cured with more pills that together effectively leech from your wallet or they are there to really help you, even if it means that you won’t need any medication worth hundreds of euros.
ReplyDeleteThe situation in the US is in my opinion even crazier since they have different health insurance and tend to pay a lot more for their medication. The example given of the man that was offered to pay $500,000 to have his life prolonged by just a couple months but ultimately turned into hell seamed absolutely crazy from my point of view. Not only will he be leaving a huge loan when he eventually does die, but he will also be unable to enjoy the last months of his life. Even if in that situation there was a chance that he could survive the cancer I still wouldn’t undergo the operation if I were him.
It's clear that almost everyone would like to die peacefully at home. But I dare to say that it is fear that makes most people decide for extensive medical treatment. Firstly. it is that in a hospital, with a nurse and the right painkillers always at hand (let's view it a little idealistically), it is much easier to endure the suffering. I agree that it is each one's personal choice but I would say that they don't decide between painful stay at a hospital and peaceful last moments with their family. Everyone struggles before death. But it is the patient who needs to face his/her true prospects and make a mature decision about which way to opt for. They should probably consider which they value more, the length of their life, however stuck to a hospital bed, or the freedom and dignity in taking care of themselves as long as they can.
DeleteI do most agree with Sam, but the author of the article pointed out an important observation - that the decision about the rest of the patient's life is made upon very critical situations. It is understandable that the families, and the patients as well, decide for the "futile" life-prolonging medical treatment as the last resort when they are not prepared to face the end. I mention this to show the other side of the argument, one which at least from my point of view is the reason why people and eventually the whole system functions as it does. Because of the human nature.
I really dislike the idea of a global doctor conspiracy, but it appears that the facts are obvious. I agree that it is possible that the doctors want to make money on patient's desperation. They might say that it's because they don't want to trouble the family but I think that they have right to know. They have the right to know what are chances of such treatment. And yeah, it is really horrible in America, where is such bad health care system. The conspiracy has been discussed earlier, but what can we do?
DeleteMy grandfather had ill hearth and he was overtreated. When he was released from hospital after his first stroke, we (me and my parents) had a consultation with his doctor. She told us which drugs to use and why. My father pointed out that he already took some dehydrating pills, yet she suggested he should take another. When my father pointed that out, she apologized and told us that she didn't even read the original list of drugs my grandfather was taking. Who knows whether this was true. Maybe conspiracy?